Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Discovered in Oregon: Status and Implications

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on May 31, 2013, that a variety of genetically engineered (GE) wheat had been discovered in a field in eastern Oregon. No varieties of genetically modified wheat have been approved, or deregulated, by the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the USDA agency responsible for regulating the release of GE plants into the environment. Release of GE plants into the natural environment is regulated by APHIS under the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), as amended.

APHIS began a formal investigation in early May after notification by an Oregon State University scientist that preliminary tests of the wheat samples from the Oregon farm indicated the possible presence of GE glyphosate-tolerant wheat plants. Test results by APHIS indicated the presence of a glyphosate-tolerant variety field-tested by Monsanto Company, a major corporate presence in agricultural biotechnology, under APHIS approval at approximately 100 field trials in 16 states between 1998 and 2005. The agency approved field testing of GE wheat in Oregon in 2001. At this time, APHIS does not know how the presence of the unapproved wheat variety occurred, how the wheat could have gotten into the field after so many years, whether violations under the PPA occurred, or whether the growth of the wheat is more widespread. Answers to these questions are among the objectives of the APHIS investigation.

The safety of GE organisms for food and feed is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). A voluntary consultation on the safety of food derived from the GE wheat variety was completed by FDA in 2004. FDA determined that the GE wheat variety was as safe for food and feed as non-GE wheat, and that there were no public health concerns.

As of early June 2013, APHIS has stated that there is no evidence that GE wheat has entered commerce. Initial tests of wheat imported by Japan, South Korea, and European Union have found no evidence of the unapproved GE trait. The presence of GE wheat in the market could have significant trade implications if the variety turns out to be widespread. The United States is a major wheat exporter, exporting about 50% of its wheat crop. About 90% of Oregon’s wheat crop is exported. Many countries, including Japan, the European Union, and South Korea, have zerotolerance policies regarding imports of unapproved GE varieties. Japan, the largest buyer of U.S. wheat, and South Korea have temporarily halted imports of U.S. soft white wheat grown in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.

Monsanto Company, the variety’s developer, provided a validated testing method for the presence of the GE trait to APHIS and to government regulators in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the European Union. If APHIS’s investigation shows that the GE wheat is isolated to the one field and a few unintended volunteer wheat plants, the trade implications are likely to be minimal. Should the investigation show that the contamination is from commingled seed, or that the GE wheat is widely dispersed, the trade implications could be more significant.


Date of Report: June 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 8
Order Number: R43100
Price: $19.95

To Order:

R43100.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Pigford Cases: USDA Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

On April 14, 1999, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford v. Glickman, a class action discrimination suit between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and black farmers. The suit claimed that the agency had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race and failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints from 1983 to 1997. The deadline for submitting a claim as a class member was September 12, 2000. Cumulative data show that as of December 31, 2011, 15,645 (69%) of the 22,721 eligible class members had final adjudications approved under the Track A process, and 104 (62%) prevailed in the Track B process for a total cost of approximately $1.06 billion in cash relief, tax payments, and debt relief.

Many voiced concern over the structure of the settlement agreement, the large number of applicants who filed late, and reported deficiencies in representation by class counsel. A provision in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. A maximum of $100 million in mandatory spending was made available for payment of these claims, and the multiple claims that were subsequently filed were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II).

On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. However, because only $100 million was made available in the 2008 farm bill, the Pigford II settlement was contingent upon congressional approval of an additional $1.15 billion in funding. After a series of failed attempts to appropriate funds for the settlement agreement, the Senate passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R. 4783) to provide the $1.15 billion appropriation by unanimous consent on November 19, 2010. The Senate bill was then passed by the House on November 30 and signed by the President on December 8 (P.L. 111-291).

Like the original Pigford case, the Pigford II settlement provides both a fast-track settlement process (Track A) and higher payments to potential claimants who go through a more rigorous review and documentation process (Track B). A moratorium on foreclosures of most claimants’ farms will remain in place until after claimants have gone through the claims process. On October 27, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval of the settlement agreement. Under the terms of the court order, claims could be submitted beginning on November 14, 2011, with a deadline for filing claims of May 11, 2012. Approximately 89,000 claim forms were mailed out. Nearly 40,000 of them ultimately were filed. Of those, approximately 34,000 were deemed complete and timely. A determination of the validity of the claims is expected to be completed in June/July 2013, after which the claims administrator will begin distributing payments to successful claimants. Preliminary estimates from the claims administrator suggest that 17,000-19,000 claims will be positively adjudicated under Pigford II, a lower proportion of successful claims than under Pigford I.

This report highlights some of the events that led up to the original Pigford class action suit and the subsequent Pigford II settlement. The report also outlines the structure of both the original consent decree in Pigford and the settlement agreement in Pigford II. In addition, the report discusses the number of claims reviewed, denied, and awarded under Pigford, as well as some of the issues raised by various parties under both lawsuits. It will be updated periodically.


Date of Report: May 29, 2013
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS20430
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RS20430.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Sugar Program Proposals for the Next Farm Bill

Remy Jurenas
Specialist in Agricultural Policy

The sugar program is structured to operate at no cost to the federal government—an objective that has been achieved over the last decade primarily using two tools: marketing allotments that limit the amount that sugar processors can sell, and import quotas that restrict the quantity of foreign sugar allowed to enter the U.S. market. Since the program records no outlays, its future did not receive attention among the proposals submitted to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees for revising the farm safety net and reducing farm program spending.

Producers of sugar beets and sugarcane, and the processors of these crops into sugar, favor retaining the current program without change. They highlight the jobs and economic activity created by the domestic sugar sector. Two general farm organizations and a coalition of some developing countries that benefit from selling against their shares of the U.S. raw sugar import quota also support continuing the current sugar program.

Food manufacturing firms that use sugar in their products seek flexibilities in how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the sugar program, with an eye toward paying lower prices as a result. In advocating change, they point to the higher wholesale refined sugar prices paid since the 2008 farm bill provisions took effect (twice the level compared to the previous 2002 farm bill period), and to the jobs that their firms create. Consumer, trade advocacy groups, and general business organizations that favor freer trade also support their position.

During 2012, Congress considered the future of the sugar program in deliberating agricultural and food assistance policy but did not complete action on a new farm bill. Instead, Section 701 of P.L. 112-240 (the “fiscal cliff” bill) extended the 2008 farm bill’s commodity program authorities for one year. This means current sugar program authority applies to the 2013 sugar crops (i.e., most of FY2014 as beets and cane are processed and sugar is marketed).

In the 113th Congress, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees have approved omnibus farm bills that would continue the sugar program without any change through FY2019 (Section 1301 of S. 954 and H.R. 1947). Both bills also continue the sugar-for-ethanol program—a backstop intended to be exercised if the other program tools do not succeed in keeping market prices above minimum guaranteed price levels.

Opponents of the sugar program have signaled their intent to offer amendments similar to those considered on the Senate floor in June 2012. Identical introduced bills (S. 345 and H.R. 693) are expected to serve as the basis for such amendments. These measures would lower price support levels to those in effect through FY2008, make a number of changes to require USDA to administer sugar marketing allotments and sugar import quotas in ways that would result in sugar being available “at reasonable prices,” and repeal the sugar-for-ethanol program.

This year, sugar program supporters and opponents have continued to present arguments similar to those in 2012, and to challenge each other’s positions, in preparation for floor debate.


Date of Report: May 17, 2013
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: R42551
Price: $29.95

To Order:

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The 2013 Farm Bill: A Comparison of the Senate-Reported Bill (S. 954) and House- Reported Bill (H.R. 1947) with Current Law

Ralph M. Chite, Coordinator
Section Research Manager

Congress periodically establishes agricultural and food policy in an omnibus farm bill. The 113th Congress faces reauthorization of the current five-year farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246), since many of its provisions expire in 2013. The 2008 farm bill originally expired in 2012, but the 112th Congress did not complete action on a new farm bill and instead extended most authorities and funding for one additional year in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the fiscal cliff bill, P.L. 112-240). The 2008 farm bill contains titles that cover farm commodity support, horticulture, livestock, conservation, nutrition assistance, international trade and food aid, agricultural research, farm credit, rural development, bioenergy, and forestry.

The Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version of an omnibus 2013 farm bill (S. 954, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013) by a vote of 15-5 on May 14, 2013. The next day, the House Agriculture Committee conducted markup of its own version of the farm bill (H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) and approved the amended bill by a vote of 36-10. Floor action on the Senate bill began during the week of May 20, 2013, and is scheduled to resume the week of June 3; the House has not yet officially scheduled floor action.

Within the 12 titles of S. 954 and H.R. 1947 are provisions that would reshape the structure of farm commodity support, expand crop insurance coverage, consolidate conservation programs, revise the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and extend authority to appropriate funds for many U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discretionary programs through FY2018. Both farm bills would eliminate direct payments to farmers and revise (and rename) them to enhance price or revenue protection for producers in the farm commodity support programs.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the mandatory programs of the 2008 farm bill, if they were to continue, would cost $973 billion over the next 10 years (FY2014-FY2023). This baseline has been reduced by $6.4 billion to reflect the effects of sequestration. Compared to this “baseline,” S. 954 as reported would reduce spending by $18 billion (-1.9%); and the House Agriculture Committee-reported bill, H.R. 1947, would reduce it by $33 billion (-3.4%). The bills differ most notably in their estimated reductions to SNAP spending. The House-reported bill proposes to restrict categorical eligibility (estimated to reduce SNAP spending by approximately $11.6 billion over 10 years), whereas the Senate bill does not include such a restriction.

This report provides a side-by-side comparison of every provision in the House Agriculture Committee- and Senate Agriculture Committee-reported farm bills with current law or policy, as amended and extended by the fiscal cliff bill.


Date of Report: May 30, 2013
Number of Pages: 162
Order Number: R43076
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43076.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues

Charles E. Hanrahan
Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy

For almost six decades, the United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and to enhance world food security through the sale on concessional terms or donation of U.S. agricultural commodities. The objectives for foreign food aid include providing emergency and humanitarian assistance in response to natural or manmade disasters, and promoting agricultural development and food security. In its FY2014 budget submission to Congress, the Administration proposes major changes in the funding and structure of both emergency and development food aid programs (Food for Peace Title II).

U.S. international food aid programs have traditionally been authorized in farm bills. The most recent of such bills, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246), authorized through FY2012 and amended international food aid programs. These programs are administered either by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). U.S. international food aid has been distributed mainly through five program authorities: the Food for Peace Act (P.L. 480); Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949; the Food for Progress Act of 1985; the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program; and the Local and Regional Procurement Pilot Project, a pilot program in the 2008 farm bill which ended in FY2012. In addition, the 2008 farm bill also reauthorized the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (BEHT), a reserve of commodities and cash for use in the Food for Peace programs to meet unanticipated food aid needs.

The 112th Congress extended the 2008 farm bill, including its international food aid provisions and food aid funding levels in effect during FY2012, through September 30, 2013, as part of the “fiscal cliff” legislation (P.L. 112-240).

Average annual spending on international food aid programs over the decade FY2002-FY2011 was approximately $2.2 billion, with Food for Peace Title II activities comprising the largest portion of the total budget. In recent years, the volume of Title II emergency food aid has exceeded the amount of nonemergency or development food aid. The 2008 farm bill provides for a “safe box” for funding of nonemergency development assistance projects under Title II, which was set at $400 million for FY2013. This requirement can be waived by the President if certain criteria are met. The 2008 farm bill also maintained funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition program on a discretionary basis, and authorized $60 million over four years for a local and regional procurement pilot project to be implemented in developing countries in order to expedite the provision of food aid to vulnerable populations affected by food crises and disasters. Separately authorized and funded is USAID’s Emergency Food Security Assistance Program, which uses International Disaster Assistance funds to provide cash-based food security assistance (local/regional procurement, cash vouchers, or cash transfers) for emergency relief.

Food aid issues debated in 2012 have re-emerged as the 113th Congress takes up the President’s food aid reform proposal. The issues include ensuring the nutritional quality of food aid provided; assessing the role of monetization (selling food aid commodities in recipient countries to finance development projects); determining the effectiveness and appropriateness of local and regional procurement of food aid; and determining the cost-effectiveness of U.S. cargo preference for delivering U.S. food aid. The Administration’s food aid proposal would shift funds from Food for Peace to three USAID accounts and eliminate the monetization procedure, provide flexibility to
procure commodities in local and regional markets overseas, and reduce the volume of commodities subject to cargo preference legislation. The Administration’s proposals will be fiercely debated as Congress takes up the President’s budget request.

Date of Report: May 20, 2013
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41072
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41072.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.